School patronage

recedite

iguana wrote: »

.. it's increasingly common for parents to 'unschool' which means to let the child take the lead. For example if a 7 year old develops a big interest in medieval knights the parents will allow the child to focus on learning about them whenever they want rather than interrupt the child's focus to make them do an hour of maths. Instead the parent might use the child's interest in knights to tell them about Roman Numerals and use that as a way to whet the child's interest in maths. And a lot of play is used for learning.

I know a guy who was homeschooled this way. Never attended a day of primary school in his life, but went to the local VEC secondary school. He won the Hamilton prize in maths at TCD last year, and was poached by a US university this summer. Check out the class; not too many are actually products of our fine educational system. These are people who learned to focus their minds from an early age. Feeding young kids a steady diet of BS does not achieve that.
On the other hand, homeschooling can also go wrong, if it's not done right.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

You can if it conflicts with your family's beliefs-says so right there in section 30.

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

You have to fit quite specific criteria in an educational psychol report to be exempted. I'm not familiar with how Irish can officially conflict with a family belief, can you elaborate??

lazygal wrote: »

Well, would a parent need to explain the conflict? It could be argued that asking parents to explain why their children are opting out of any subject would violate their right to privacy-no one has to reveal their religious affiliations after all. And anyway, would schools then be the arbiter of how 'valid' a family's beliefs were and only grant such legal rights to opt out of subjects if they consider it a 'real' rather than a 'makey uppy' belief?

It doesn't actually say anything about family beliefs; it says
30.—(1) The Minister <..> shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student or in the case of a student who has reached the age of 18 years, the student.
I don't think it could be a violation of privacy to ask a parent to demonstrate that the subject is contrary to their conscience; given the way the legislation is framed though I would say the arbiter of whether it should be considered to be the case would be the Minister rather than the school.

lazygal wrote: »

The law says parents have the right to opt out on the grounds of a subject conflicting with a belief. I can't see anywhere stated that the belief and its conflict with subjects taught in schools needs to be considered valid by the school. How would your school deal with a family opting out of a subject on the grounds of belief? Would the parents need to write out exactly how the conflict arose or would the school demand 'proof' of the conflict? As I said, if you can opt of the most important subject, why not the other less important ones?

Well, it says they have the right to opt out if is contrary to their conscience, which is a different thing. But so long as the Minister is satisfied the child is receiving a certain minimum education, I can't see any reason why every subject couldn't be opted out of if the Minister is also satisfied the parents find them contrary to the parents conscience.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to point out, rec, that being "different to other citizens" is exactly what diversity means. And if you want to erode differences between citizens, and to campaing for an entirely homogenous society you're at liberty to do so, but you should expect cultural, ethnic, religious etc minorities to consider such policies prejudiced, and to see themselves as the victims of that prejudice.

Diversity, but within certain "reasonable" norms is desirable for a society. A completely homogenous society is not something to strive for. But a society that is composed of mutually incompatible cultures is going to fail. So it follows that the successful state should steer its citizens towards remaining within certain parameters. Check out this video called Diverse youth enriches Brussels with intercultural dialogues.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Where "reasonable" means "reasonable to recedite"?

"Reasonable" to a civilised society.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I quarrel with your assumption that every school must "not unsuitable . . . for any particular class of citizens". I don't see why this is necessary. Provided my child has access to a suitable school, I don't see that it is necessary or desirable that every other school in the country should also be suitable for her.

Because (a) some other child is living beside that school, but cannot attend it.
and (b) Why should the state fund schools that are discriminatory, or are not suitable for all its citizens? That does not promote integration, it promotes conflict.

RainyDay

expectationlost wrote: »

co-operation from the 'pillars of the community'

Thanks for the explanation, and you're probably right - in the thinking of those who are/were in control of the decision. But really, what 'cooperation' do you need from the Church when setting up a state school. Is there any reason why you don't just set up the state school, and let the Church continue to do their own thing?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Castletroy is a designated community college, meaning that it's under ETB patronage, but it's governed in accordance with an agreement with a trustee partner, which in this case is the Diocese of Limerick.

The DCC model was developed in the late '70s, and represents what looks like a hybrid between the old VEC school and the community college. I don't know how Castletroy came to be established under the DCC model, but the usual story is that a DCC school has replaced or amalgamated a number of predecessor schools, at least one of which was a VEC/ETB school, and at least one of which was under a non-VEC/ETB patron. Reading between the lines, the model was developed to assist in securing community buy-in to new schools. In other words, Castletroy is a DCC, basically, because the judgment of the Dept of Ed at the time was that parents wanted a school with religious involvement in its management.

The trustee partner is not always a religious body. Kishoge Community College is a DCC under ETB patronage, with Educate Together as the trustee partner.

Thanks for the explanation - very useful, and fairly scary to be honest. Do you know of the trustee relationship is perpetual, or time-limited?

expectationlost

Allowing children to opt out of religion classes could cost the taxpayer millions by John Walshe http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/allowing-children-to-opt-out-of-religion-classes-could-cost-the-taxpayer-millions-34228112.html freedom costs mr walsh.

and he says NCCA course is non religious when we've already seen it isn't

recedite

Every secondary school could have a supervised library/study room. Apart from solving the "religious dissenters" supervision thing, it would be beneficial for those unable to do PE due to injuries, and be of general educational value.

Most schools have chapels or meditation rooms, chaplains, and religion teachers "accredited" by one particular denomination. If there is money for all this BS, there is money for a supervised study room. If there is insufficient money for both, then leave out the chapels and the meditation rooms.

Hotblack Desiato

Just in case anyone hasn't seen it, Zamboni posted a thread about the launch of Education Equality, thanks Zamboni.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Diversity, but within certain "reasonable" norms is desirable for a society. A completely homogenous society is not something to strive for. But a society that is composed of mutually incompatible cultures is going to fail. So it follows that the successful state should steer its citizens towards remaining within certain parameters. Check out this video called Diverse youth enriches Brussels with intercultural dialogues.

If you accept that you want any degree of diversity at all then the argument that all social institutions must be equally suitable for all citizens falls over.

recedite wrote: »

Because (a) some other child is living beside that school, but cannot attend it.

Why is this a problem? As long as the child can attend a suitable school, how it is injured by the existence (and funding) of a school that it does not wish to attend?

recedite wrote: »

. . . and (b) Why should the state fund schools that are discriminatory, or are not suitable for all its citizens? That does not promote integration, it promotes conflict.

False dichotomy, there. I look in vain for any evidence that the fact that there's a Jewish school in Rathgar (or, in particular, the fact that it receives state funding) "promotes conflict". Are you seriously arguing that if Stratford College were defunded there's be less conflict in Ireland?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you accept that you want any degree of diversity at all then the argument that all social institutions must be equally suitable for all citizens falls over.

Not at all. Social institutions should uphold whatever shared values that all of society has in common. That does not preclude people holding diverse interests, beliefs and values privately.

Why is this a problem? As long as the child can attend a suitable school, how it is injured by the existence (and funding) of a school that it does not wish to attend?

The child may have to travel a long distance to the alternative school, and be educated separately to his/her neighbours.

False dichotomy, there. I look in vain for any evidence that the fact that there's a Jewish school in Rathgar (or, in particular, the fact that it receives state funding) "promotes conflict". Are you seriously arguing that if Stratford College were defunded there's be less conflict in Ireland?

There's also a muslim school in nearby Clonskeagh. Would it be beneficial for the muslim and jewish kids to mix with each other, and also the general population, in a secular state school? I would say so, yes. Would there be less conflict? I don't think there is much evidence of either being involved in conflict in Ireland, although Irish people from both these communities have travelled to the middle east and got involved in conflict there. One guy, Herzog, even became the president of Israel. Currently there are around 20 from Ireland fighting for IS, apparently, and some others operating a support network from here.
Looking around at other more mainstream religious communities that have practiced segregated schooling for generations; the prods and the catholics. You'll have to admit that Ireland has been synonymous the world over with sectarian strife for a long time. Coincidence?

The state should be indifferent to matters of religion and race. It is not the job of the state to promote diversity. The state should first of all promote equality of opportunity for all its citizens, and secondly it should promote social cohesion. It should allow diversity.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The state should be indifferent to matters of religion and race. It is not the job of the state to promote diversity. The state should first of all promote equality of opportunity for all its citizens, and secondly it should promote social cohesion. It should allow diversity.

So... rather than imposing secular schools which would certainly be a less than indifferent activity in matters of religion, it should allow the diversity of denominational education?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Not at all. Social institutions should uphold whatever shared values that all of society has in common. That does not preclude people holding diverse interests, beliefs and values privately.

Our shared values, rec, include the idea that people can hold diverse interests, beliefs and values publicly as well as privately. (Please tell me I'm not wrong!)

recedite wrote: »

The child may have to travel a long distance to the alternative school, and be educated separately to his/her neighbours.

If that is the case, there may be a need for for a greater choice of schools in her neighbourhood. But it's no argument for saying that every school in the country must be suitable for her. Especially if her priority is being educated with her neighbours, pretty much by definition nearly every school in the country will not be suitable for her.

recedite wrote: »

There's also a muslim school in nearby Clonskeagh. Would it be beneficial for the muslim and jewish kids to mix with each other, and also the general population, in a secular state school? I would say so, yes.

The parents who choose to send their children to the Muslim and Jewish schools clearly disagree.

recedite wrote: »

The state should be indifferent to matters of religion and race. It is not the job of the state to promote diversity. The state should first of all promote equality of opportunity for all its citizens, and secondly it should promote social cohesion. It should allow diversity.

What Absalom said. If the State is indifferent to matters of religion, then whether a school is religious or not should not be a factor in funding decisions. The funding decisions should focus on things that matter to the state. Is there demand for the school? Is it of a viable size? Are its teaching standards acceptable? Does it implement the curriculum?

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

What Absalom said. If the State is indifferent to matters of religion, then whether a school is religious or not should not be a factor in funding decisions. The funding decisions should focus on things that matter to the state. Is there demand for the school? Is it of a viable size? Are its teaching standards acceptable? Does it implement the curriculum?

Surely that should be the State should be impartial to matters of religion, rather than indifferent. Which would be a whole different (altogether more acceptable to fans of diversity) stance than the current "rather partial to the status quo of national schools being over 90% RCC (and therefore indifferent to alternatives)"?

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Especially if her priority is being educated with her neighbours, pretty much by definition nearly every school in the country will not be suitable for her.

If it was put to the Irish people to decide whether children would be better off being educated within their community with their neighbours, as opposed to being bused out to other communities on the basis of school ethos preferences, which answer do you think would swing it (taking the religion question out altogether....just for the craic like....)?

expectationlost

Judge rules Government broke the law in excluding Humanism from school curriculum
November 25th, 2015
Email


In a landmark judgment handed down in the High Court today, a judge has ruled in favour of the three humanist parents and their children who challenged the Government’s relegation of non-religious worldviews in the latest subject content for GCSE Religious Studies. In his decision, Mr Justice Warby stated that the Government had made an ‘error of law’ in leaving non-religious worldviews such as humanism out of the GCSE, amounting to ‘a breach of the duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in a pluralistic manner.’ The British Humanist Association (BHA), which was responsible for bringing the case and has supported the three families throughout, has welcomed the decision.

While the Government will not be immediately compelled to change the GSCE, religious education syllabuses around the country will now have to include non-religious worldviews such as humanism on an equal footing, and pupils taking a GCSE will also have to learn about non-religious worldviews alongside the course.

https://humanism.org.uk/2015/11/25/judge-rules-government-broke-the-law-in-excluding-humanism-from-school-curriculum/ just like here atheism and humanism only got a brief mention in the religious studies course syllabus https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-religious-studies

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Surely that should be the State should be impartial to matters of religion, rather than indifferent. Which would be a whole different (altogether more acceptable to fans of diversity) stance than the current "rather partial to the status quo of national schools being over 90% RCC (and therefore indifferent to alternatives)"?

I can't see there's any real argument to be made for the State being 'partial' to 90% of schools being Catholic though; in fact the evidence is to the contrary, since the State has shown a partiality for diversity in schools when opening new ones where any ethos is strongly represented, even to the degree of preferring diversity of provision over the wishes of parents who would rather have another Catholic school. That readily demonstrates a lack of 'indifference' to alternatives I would think.

Shrap wrote: »

If it was put to the Irish people to decide whether children would be better off being educated within their community with their neighbours, as opposed to being bused out to other communities on the basis of school ethos preferences, which answer do you think would swing it (taking the religion question out altogether....just for the craic like....)?

How can you take the religion question out altogether when it is manifestly a feature in the preferences parents express when choosing schools?

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

https://humanism.org.uk/2015/11/25/judge-rules-government-broke-the-law-in-excluding-humanism-from-school-curriculum/ just like here atheism and humanism only got a brief mention in the religious studies course syllabus https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-religious-studies

I'm sure there's a few humanists and atheists hereabouts who would disagree that either topic belongs in 'religious' studies, not being religious philosophies

Peregrinus

Shrap wrote: »

If it was put to the Irish people to decide whether children would be better off being educated within their community with their neighbours, as opposed to being bused out to other communities on the basis of school ethos preferences, which answer do you think would swing it (taking the religion question out altogether....just for the craic like....)?

You mean, if we frame the question in a way that seeks to avoid answers that we don't want to hear, will we avoid hearing what we don't want to hear?

Probably, yes. But a easier and more certain way of achieving the same outcome would be not to ask any questions at all.

Shrap

Was my actual question too hard to answer or something?! I took religion out of the question as an exercise to show that without the emotional response to religion (the kind displayed here by Peregrinus and Absolam rather perfectly), the answer most people would give (I'm imagining, since people have avoided answering) is that children going to school within their community and with their neighbours is better for them and society, than being bused to a non-community school with a different ethos.

That was all. Quite simple really, when you think about it.

Peregrinus

Quite simple, but also quite pointless. You could equally validly point out that without the response to convenience of commuting, the answer most people would give would be something different again.

It's pointless because people do in fact have the responses they do. If you pose a question deliberately framed to exclude considerations arising from realities that you would rather ignore, you can probably get the answer you want to hear. But so what? It's not an answer that has any useful applications in the real world.

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Quite simple, but also quite pointless. You could equally validly point out that without the response to convenience of commuting, the answer most people would give would be something different again.

It's pointless because people do in fact have the responses they do. If you pose a question deliberately framed to exclude considerations arising from realities that you would rather ignore, you can probably get the answer you want to hear. But so what? It's not an answer that has any useful applications in the real world.

It's not pointless to frame the same question in a different way, as it shows people that they have a different response to that question when they have an emotional investment in it. By taking out the word religion, yes, you can get an answer that is unrealistic considering that most schools are religious. But when you don't consider that most schools are religious, this shows up a different set of beliefs, where the ideal for a National School system would be for children to be educated within their communities. And it shows up the reality that this can't happen because of our National School system's religiosity.

Cognitive dissonance. It's the thing you're using to ignore the fact that our state schools (that everyone pays for) are not equipped to provide a community education for any child (which should be a basic premise for a state education system, no?) because of their overwhelmingly religious patronage.

Genuinely just trying to come at the same question from a different angle here, not trying to make you uncomfortable

Peregrinus

Shrap wrote: »

It's not pointless to frame the same question in a different way, as it shows people that they have a different response to that question when they have an emotional investment in it. By taking out the word religion, yes, you can get an answer that is unrealistic considering that most schools are religious . . .

You're missing the point. It's unrealistic because most parents are religious, at least to some extent, and many or most parents do in fact want religious involvement in their child's education. If you ask people to ignore this factor, and then say on what other factor they would choose a school, then you'll get answers that refer to academic standards, or social cachet, or quality of pastoral care, or something else. And you can get them to ignore those factors too if you frame the question, as you suggest, specifically to focus on a choice between a neighbourhood school and a more remote school. Then you can be reasonably confident of hearing that they'd prefer a neighbourhood school, thanks.

But, like I keep saying, so what? But all you're doing is identifying the answer you want and then framing a question that will elicit that answer. In the real world parents care about more than the location of the school. What you're doing is framing a question designed to exclude all the factors which might get in the way of the answer that you want to hear. This tells me a good deal about what you want, but practically nothing about what parents want. In fact, it looks like a strategy intentionally designed to obscure what parents want.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

So... rather than imposing secular schools which would certainly be a less than indifferent activity in matters of religion, it should allow the diversity of denominational education?

Providing secular schools is not the same as imposing secular schools. Private denominational or other special interest schools could still co-exist with secular state-funded schools.
Secular being "indifferent" to religion in the sense of being neutral or impartial to religion, as Shrap pointed out.
The state should allow a diversity of denominational education, but should neither promote nor fund it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Our shared values, rec, include the idea that people can hold diverse interests, beliefs and values publicly as well as privately. (Please tell me I'm not wrong!)

Of course. But surely you don't expect the state to fund the diverse private interests and beliefs displayed publicly by your good self ?

Peregrinus wrote: »

.. if that is the case, there may be a need for for a greater choice of schools in her neighbourhood. But it's no argument for saying that every school in the country must be suitable for her.

How many religions are there in Ireland? How many different linguistic groups? How many different teaching philosophies, eg. steiner, montessori ?
The state cannot possibly fund one of each type in every little village or neighbourhood. Even if that was considered desirable.
Economically, more and smaller schools means less resources and less facilities per school.
Socially, it works against social cohesion and an overall sense of shared community.

RainyDay

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing the point. It's unrealistic because most parents are religious, at least to some extent, and many or

Define 'religious'?

Do you mean 'go to Mass at Xmas, Easter, weddings, funerals and baptisms', and communion/confirmation celebrations?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Providing secular schools is not the same as imposing secular schools. Private denominational or other special interest schools could still co-exist with secular state-funded schools.

Denominational and special interest schools can currently co-exist with secular schools. Removing funding from those schools and only funding secular schools would most assuredly be imposing secular schools.

recedite wrote: »

Secular being "indifferent" to religion in the sense of being neutral or impartial to religion, as Shrap pointed out.
The state should allow a diversity of denominational education, but should neither promote nor fund it.

Why? If the people of the State want State funded denominational education for their children, what mandate does the State have to refuse it?

Dan_Solo

RainyDay wrote: »

Define 'religious'?

Do you mean 'go to Mass at Xmas, Easter, weddings, funerals and baptisms', and communion/confirmation celebrations?

Oh I'm sure he'll opt for the "baptised so they're religious" approach. Similar to "send their kids to a religious school so they must be religious themselves".

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Denominational and special interest schools can currently co-exist with secular schools. Removing funding from those schools and only funding secular schools would most assuredly be imposing secular schools.

As mentioned earlier, there are numerous special interest schools in the state, such as steiner schools or foreign language schools, which don't receive state funding. Why are religious schools so special that they must be publicly funded?
Could they not survive without state support? If religious schools are as important as you seem to think, religious parents will support the school upholding their own religion, privately.

Absolam wrote: »

Why? If the people of the State want State funded denominational education for their children, what mandate does the State have to refuse it?

Majority religions which are endowed by the state should not benefit from this state support, even if the majority seem happy with it.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

expectationlost

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure there's a few humanists and atheists hereabouts who would disagree that either topic belongs in 'religious' studies, not being religious philosophies

The judge said: "It is not of itself unlawful to permit an RS GCSE to be created which is wholly devoted to the study of religion."
But he added the February announcement had included the "assertion" the new GCSE "will fulfil the entirety of the state's [religious education] duties" and schools would interpret this to mean non-religious views need not be included in teaching. "The assertion thus represents a breach of the duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in a pluralistic manner," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34921857

whether its compulsory in some schools...

In secondary schools, GCSEs are compulsory in the core subjects. The only requirement is that in state schools English, mathematics, science and physical education are studied during Key Stage 4 (the GCSE years of school). In England and Northern Ireland, pupils following the national curriculum (compulsory in state schools) must also study some form of information communication technology (ICT), and citizenship. In Wales, Welsh (as a first or second language) must also be studied. These subjects do not have to be taught for any examination (or even be discrete lessons), though it is normal for at least English, mathematics and science to be studied to GCSE level.

For the reasons above, virtually all pupils take GCSEs in English, mathematics and science. In addition, many schools also require that pupils take English literature, at least one modern foreign language, at least one design and technology subject, religious education (often a short, or 'half', course), and ICT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education

Peregrinus

RainyDay wrote: »

Define 'religious'?

Do you mean 'go to Mass at Xmas, Easter, weddings, funerals and baptisms', and communion/confirmation celebrations?

In this context, I mean they are sufficiently religious to want to choose a school under religious patronage, which is what's relevant here.

We know this, among other things, from the large-scale consultation on patronage preference undertaken by the Dept of Education a couple of years ago, and much discussed on this board. In every district but one, a majority of parents of school-age and pre-school-age children expressed a preference for Catholic patronage. If you add in other religions patronages, then in every single district, a majority favoured religions patronage of one kind or another.

The majority was not 95%, and there is a substantial oversupply of
Catholic schools relative to demand in Ireland, and a substantial undersupply of other types, especially ET schools. But if 100% of the schools were secular, that would not reduce the mismatch between what parents want and what they get; it would substantially increase it.

looksee

The judge said: "It is not of itself unlawful to permit an RS GCSE to be created which is wholly devoted to the study of religion."

That's interesting, I have a GCE O level in Religious (Education) - I think it was called RE, in the 1960s. The school was essentially secular and RE was taught in the same way as Geography or History. I wonder when it stopped, if it is now being re-created.